"Financial independence is a great thing, but you can’t take your paycheck to bed with you. And there’s nothing empowering about being beholden to an employer when what you really want is to have a baby. That’s dependency of a different sort."

Be advised that you should probably take several deep, cleansing breaths and put away any and all sharp objects before reading further.

"Financial independence is a great thing, but you can’t take your paycheck to bed with you. And there’s nothing empowering about being beholden to an employer when what you really want is to have a baby. That’s dependency of a different sort."

Be advised that you should probably take several deep, cleansing breaths and put away any and all sharp objects before reading further.

Ugh! There's so many things wrong with this article but one thing that stands out to me is this assumption that men are just walking bags of sperm with lots of money.

Fox News Twatwaffle wrote:

There’s no way to be a wife, a mother and a full-time employee and still create balance.

But being a husband, a father, a full-time employee and creating balance is easy peasy, amirite? Oh wait, looking after the kid is the woman's job. so there's one thing he won't have to worry about.

That part made me really angry as well. Not only is this moron saying that a woman's place is in the home, she's also saying that all every woman really wants is to stay home and make babies, if she could just find some hardworking mug to foot the bill. (And apparently all men are desperate to affirm their masculinity via their breadwinning expertise, if only those ball-busting "feminists" would give them a chance!)

Fox News Twatwaffle wrote:

So why not let husbands bring home the bulk of the bacon so women can have the balanced lives they seek?…you can have balance by depending on a husband who works full-time and year-round.

Because that is the sole reason men exist: to provide sperm and bring home bacon. The end.

Maggie Muggins wrote:

And of course we all want BABIES!!!!!!!

Because that is the sole reason women exist! I mean, what else are we for, right??

Why can't it be "Release Your Inner Goddess and Watch Her Ravage Ice Cream And Fart In The Couch Cushions?"

If they provide the ice cream, I am totally attending that seminar.

I want to go to that too but I'm pretty sure they would run me out with pitchforks.

I would lead that seminar and it would be super-inclusive! And as for pitchforks, goddesses who fart in the couch cushions can't get up from the couch cushions during a seminar! And goddesses shouldn't be judgmental crassholes.

Either way, come by my house and I will make you ice-cream and blackbean brownies for extra flatulence!

_________________My oven is bigger on the inside, and it produces lots of wibbly wobbly, cake wakey... stuff. - The PoopieB.

That headline is a little misleading… my read of the story is that the new law would require women to buy a rider on their insurance if they ever want to have an abortion in the future as the result of an unplanned pregnancy. Rape is, however, included in the umbrella of what constitutes 'unplanned.'

That said, it's still atrocious and it was put forth by Michigan Right To Life, so the intent was certainly one of reducing women to little more than sexual and reproductive vessels regardless of the specific wording.

Why can't it be "Release Your Inner Goddess and Watch Her Ravage Ice Cream And Fart In The Couch Cushions?"

I want to go to that too but I'm pretty sure they would run me out with pitchforks.

I would lead that ovanar

Fixed.

Quote:

and it would be super-inclusive! And as for pitchforks, goddesses who fart in the couch cushions can't get up from the couch cushions during a seminar! And goddesses shouldn't be judgmental crassholes.

My inner goddess is on hir way.

Quote:

Either way, come by my house and I will make you ice-cream and blackbean brownies for extra flatulence!

I'll bring cabbage cupcakes!

_________________Man, fork the gender card, imma come at you with the whole damned gender deck. - Olives Did you ever think that, like, YOU are a sexy costume FOR a diva cup? - solipsistnationblog!FB!

My father, who thinks that it is ok to make jokes about domestic violence and victim blaming. This is itself is bad enough, but the fact that me, my mum and my little sister have been abused by my brother for as long as I can remember really doesn't help. If I could afford to move out, I would never speak to him again.

Another horrible case of pregnant women having their rights violated. An Italian national has a panic attack in England, and social services gets a court order to have her forcibly sedated and the baby removed from her by c-section and her parental rights terminated so the infant can be given up for adoption. 15 months later, she still has no idea where her child is. She has said that she is now medicated, but the English courts say she is still a danger as she could relapse.

I wanted to clip salient pieces of everything that is wrong with this case, but there is just so much terribly wrong here.

First, a pregnant woman with a mental illness that can be managed with medication, forcibly confined to a hospital against her will for 5 weeks and then forcibly sedated and having her child removed. What does it mean for anyone who is pregnant and has any illness? Are they no longer in charge of what happens to their bodies? And does this mean that pregnant women now need to be afraid to call the police if they are having an episode?

Second, the fact that English social services didn't coordinate with Italy at all, to try and find a way to support the Italian mother and her child.

Third, that despite having her condition under control,the judge determined that her parental rights were terminated and the baby girl released for adoption, because "she could have a relapse." What does that mean for any parent struggling with mental illness?

I can't even get my head around how this happened - that the hospital didn't refuse to confine her, sedate her and operate on her against her will, that the courts just gave a court order to allow something so invasive, that her rights are terminated and she has never once seen her daughter, despite showing that for 15 months she has had her condition under control

What the everlovingfuck is wrong with people!

_________________My oven is bigger on the inside, and it produces lots of wibbly wobbly, cake wakey... stuff. - The PoopieB.

I just read about that and came here to see if anyone else had. I'm really astounded that they never worked with Italian social services or tried to have the child placed with a family member. And I'm terrified of the precedent this could set for parents with mental illnesses.

She could have a relapse?! Yes, and I guess any woman (or man) could have her (his) first panic attack next month, or 1 year after becoming a parent, so?! No babies for anyone! We're all damaged goods.

That's terrifying and absolutely mindboggling. Like FF said, ANYONE can develop mental illness. I couldn't have foreseen developing panic disorder before I did, but lo and behold! So, NO ONE should have children then.

_________________Did you notice the slight feeling of panic at the words "Chicken Basin Street"? Like someone was walking over your grave? Try not to remember. We must never remember. - mumblesIs this about devilberries and nazifruit again? - footface

I work in an administrative arm of the Court mentioned and must state that I know nothing of the case.

If it is the Court of Protection that is involved there would be an awful lot of confidential personal and medical information involved, including mental capacity assessments, that couldn't be released to the press or reported upon unless authorized by the Judge.

Quote:

(the council would) have to find “that she was basically unfit to make any decision herself” and then shown there was an acute risk to the mother if a natural birth was attempted.

This is correct. They'd have to present compelling evidence to a Judge, who is well versed in mental capacity and human rights legislation, in order to have anything like this happen. Still, I've never heard anything like it before.

Well, pregnant women having their rights violated, in the name of what is best for the child, seems to not be uncommon, and be pretty alarming.

I was doing research, and found a case here in NJ, that really just terrifies me.

In 2006, a married, pregnant woman refused a c-section at St. Barnabas and argued with the staff. She then gave birth vaginally to a healthy baby girl, but her refusal to accept the c-section had the hospital call DYFS to investigate. Her child was removed from her care at the hospital. She and her husband fought for the return of their first and only child, at which point DYFS introduced evidence of her having had treatment with a psychiatrist (not in-patient) for treatable mental illnesses (depression, PTSD). And so it was deemed to be in the best interest of the child to leave her in pre-adoptive foster care.

In 2010, the courts overturned the initial finding of abuse (which relied on the mother's refusal of a c-section against medical advice) but refused to restore custody, saying there were other grounds to worry. The Supreme Court and other higher courts refused to hear the parents' case in 2010.

And as of September 2013, the Court determined that neither parent poses a threat to the child - the father has no mental illnesses and the mother has treatable depression and PTSD and is under the care of a psychiatrist. But at this point, the Court determined that it was not in the best interest of the minor child to have therapeutic visitations in preparation for a return to her biological parents, because of strong bond between the child and the foster parents who have raised her. The child experiences anxiety and regression whenever the possibility of meeting her bio parents is raised. Here is the most recent opinion.http://www.njlawarchive.com/archive/a35 ... 001-11.pdf

So this family lost custody of their newborn because she refused a c-section against medical advice. Then over the next 6 years, they underwent countless examinations and legal procedures to try and get their child back. And now, the child has a strong bond with her foster family, and it is not in the "best interest" of the child to return her to her biological parents. Its just a heartbreaking case.

_________________My oven is bigger on the inside, and it produces lots of wibbly wobbly, cake wakey... stuff. - The PoopieB.

Here is a law review article on it: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... 81-112.pdfIt talks about how inappropriate it was to consider the refusal of medical treatment for an unborn child to be posing a danger to a child, and then punishing the mother for her medical decisions using the welfare process.

This case also hits really close to home for me, because Morristown Memorial threatened to call DYFS on me when I wanted to take Leela out of the hospital for treatment of jaundice, because all the literature and her pediatrician (who didn't have privileges at MM) said that a bili blanket at home with a visiting nurse would be enough. Instead they forced me to keep her in a glass box under UV lights, getting incompetent medical treatment, and having them threaten to give her formula, even as they admitted that what she was going through was completely normal. I backed down because I didn't want DYFS involved And yes, they could have found mental issues with me - I've had therapy for PTSD and anxiety.